[DEBATE] New Clan Rules/Regulations

[Joey Skylynx]

No, this is not some Kumonryu Law Offices thread, its' an actual debate thread which needs to be made to discuss some current downfalls with the new regulations and clan rules enacted on the clan world of City RP. Anyone who is not updated on the new Clan War rules, please feel free to look at this thread in the clan discussion forum. All though most of these rules are perfectly fine and reasonable, it does create a problematic issue regarding a lot of common place practices used in the clan world since the drama-filled war between Yakuza and Semper Fi, known simply as "The Bouncer War".

Now for anyone who is not aware of clan affair pre-current rules, let me get you updated.

* Clan Wars were serious affairs that simply were not started because, "HURDURR I DO NOT LIKE YOU" and every clan war had to have some form of political meditation before and after the affair. You could not enter a clan war without first contacting the other group and trying to simmer the heat that was close to starting a conflict. Another key thing is that any affairs which could lead to conflict had to be directly related to the clans involved. One example of this was the Suave Assassin-Czechnyen Rebel War, in which both sides had violently confronted each other with their job titles set as, "Czechnyen Rebel - Soldier" and "Suave Assassin - Agent" as such the war was valid because we had violent confrontations which directly involved our clans. Name, job titles, and all.

* Everyone was uniformed in a certain suit-type as to ensure that combat did not directly involve civilian casualties. You also had to have flags, emblems, and other things which made your bases distinguished from other bases and enterprises. As stated before, this was to prevent any "crossfire" and collateral damage from occurring.

* You had to capture the enemy leader with a tranq rifle and rope... You could not simply end a war by wiping out an enemy force inside their homes. This was meant to produce a method in which surrender terms could still be issued, and players would not have to be forced to close down their groups.

* Finally, all combat went. If you wore a tag and you were spotted just about anywhere... You were open game. This means that if you owned a shop, and your job was set to "Clan X - Chef" and Clan Y spotted you during a war... Your shop could be firebombed, and you killed. This was fair game.

Now with everyone updated on the very minimalist structure of the rules back in the day, lets take a look at the current rulelist and have a nice and easy going debate about current issues[and loopholes] that we can see within the rulelist presently.

3 - Wars are about attacking and defending. Guerilla tactics are not allowed as they cause too much chaos on the server. Therefore a clan is not allowed to go around hunting down and executing/hostaging rival clan members in the street. Further rules will expand on this.

As a starting grudge and "why the hell" type deal, let me start off by saying that this does not make any sense what-so-ever.
Guerilla Warfare is a method that can be used by a smaller group against a larger aggressor. The game is to hit the enemy team when it is at it's weakest, and bolt the hell out. I used these tactics in the Bouncer War, Czech-Suave War, and FUMUKU-SAA War. They were always a valid game of hit n' run, and mostly relied on Tides Truck drivebys, or driving up to a household, firing a flare gun, and shooting the enemy members as the ran out to figure out what was going on.

Clan Wars are fought in the measure of out-doing and out-fighting the enemy group. If they set up stores that are used to get money for the war, you burn them down. If they set up a house to farm contraband for money... You attract them outside, kill or hostage them, burn their house down. These tactics exist in the theory of Total War. You are attempting to drag support away from the enemy clan, force them onto the defensive, and defeat them. These rules do not give the whole "clean and efficient" measures that the admin team is seeking in order to prevent long and lengthy wars like the Bouncer War. Instead it'll rise the possibility of lengthy "Doomfort Wars" where no one will leave their bases because they do not wish to die in a foolish assault on another base.

4 - Clan wars must take place in clan war zones. These are bases/areas which must be clearly marked by each clan. Both clans must have a base of operations which can be assaulted. Normal basing rules apply, if a clan doomforts, said clan will be immediately closed. These zones can be anything from shops/factories to a HQ, but must be clearly marked and CANNOT be in the city. Multiple zones can exist at once.

This rule goes against the point of a war. If clans are at war with each other, they shouldn't be killed/outlawed because of the tactics or defenses they choose to use. If the defenses follow the applicable rules of the server, they should be allowed for use, and the clans should be allowed to use defenses where they so choose, as it ensures their capabilities still exist in a clan war.
The other problem in this rule is that we are no longer able to use houses within the city, use shops to sell goods to gain money for the war, or to have battles and conflicts in the city. This greatly limits the amount of combat which can take place in the server, and likewise, clans will simply switch of their tags and just goto the city and start selling goods, avoiding the conflict and utterly defeating the purpose of a war causing issues economically speaking.
Killjoy and Storm use to say that wars should cause economic loss. They should be things that make the players fighting in them realize the pointlessness and futility of these conflicts in a server where if your clan is destroyed, you can simply reform a new one with the same deal and tactics.

5 - The clan representative cannot simply hide away. He must be present in either one of the clan zones, or be actively taking part in an assault.

No. Just no.
I can command from a bunker, lead from the front, or sit back on another server giving orders to field commanders within the warzone. Why must I simply die and have my clan closed because of some crappy rule?

8 - Clan wars man be solved diplomatically, but it is not a requirement.

Clan wars should require all sorts of Lawyer and Legal RP before and after the affairs the groups have with each other. The reason for this is simple: It prevents blood from being spilled for pointless reasons. If players have to goto a meeting to discuss the problems their clans are having, and try to find a suitable outcome, we'll be able to prevent a great deal of wars from ever occuring in the first place. If people are simply allowed to their own devices and allowed to simply wage war without reason and direction, we will see many decent clans being destroyed in conflict as they are unable to wage a war. This WILL lead to a snowball effect in the clan world in which we will have only one or two clans that completely dominate the server. This is the same fricking thing that occurred with Yakuza and Semper Fi, and we all know how that ended.

10 - If you have been killed in a raid or fight with the opposing clan you may not return what so ever, even if the 5 minutes has passed. You are considered clan killed and you may not participate in the war anymore, even if you are requested or ordered to come.

Nope.avi
This is such a stupid rule. You should be allowed to continue fighting in a war, maybe a 30 minute NLR to prevent you from re-entering clan affairs, but if your leader is not captured and executed, why should you be forced out of the war?

12 - A clan representative may call for surrender even if they have not been captured - However, their clan will be in the hands of the other clan and they will have lost the war, and may be closed.

Why can we just not call for a ceasefire, and start a diplomatic round table..? Why must all things end with the closure of a clan with unconditional terms, or with a group just getting fed up and realizing that the war is pointless, and calling for an admin to end it to ensure that more pointless drama and bloodshed is prevented?

15 - If you leave the war zone(s) during a raid/defending, you have left the raid and are not permitted to return, not even after one hour. If the representative leaves the war zone during a raid, you have surrendered and your clan will be defeated.

What if you need food..? What if you need supplies? Why must wars be ended with such silly reasons? Wars need to involve the server as it shows the futility and drama involved in war, and gives reason for why wars should not be started at all.

I have a great amount of grudges with the new set of rules. The current set of rules only promote aggressive roleplay in the clan world, and do not have a set of precursors to prevent wars via diplomatic channels. Wars allow you to get your opponents removed far more quickly, either by making them leave the war on accident or by getting them banned for trying to aid their own clan in a bloody war.

We need to have a debate and talk with the entire community about revising the rules. The current rule set for the clan world is far to aggressive and restrictive in the terms of how to wage a war in the server, and this is very, very bad.

[BlackDog]

Going to have to agree with all the above points, the new rules seem far to exploitable and restrictive and promote nothing but mass slaughter.

They seem to disallow players to attempt to minimize casualties during a combat situation, and instead mandate blind full frontal charges in combat situations that lead to countless deaths and property damage.

Not to mention how nearly every new clause and policy result in the instant closure of a clan involved if even the most minor of infraction takes place, what is the point of promoteing passive RP and clan RP in general if clans on FL are subject to pointless wars that threaten to shut them down entirely.

Rule 12 irks me quite a bit, why should a clan be subject to closure in the event they surrender, in RP terms their forces are still completely capable of continueing, they just want to get back to normal life, why in any logical sense should it be closed down if someone wishes it so? Potential war reperations or fines maybe, but the concept of closeing down a clan on FL based on a "war" in itself is insanity.

How many good things have ever come from clan wars in all honesty? In my time on FL clan wars have done nothing but cause drama that continues to this day, from backroom plots, both clan forum and more secure access areas, to steam harassment of members of a particular clan, to ingame radio chats tryin to find ways to attack a passive RP zone to for the sole purpose of sticking it to the group, such as "Lets try to extort money from them, if they refuse we can hit them, that way they have nothing to say if we slaughter them for refuseing" With the full sign off of its Staff head. To "Lets make a clan claim to the area their useing, that way we can forcefully uproot them", again signed off on by the groups Staff leader.

Do we really think adding so many instant clan closure clauses and restricting the players ability to actualy make a conflict less bloody if it gets to the point of open conflict is going to do anything to reduce the backroom drama that is caused by these?

[User 12049]

Fuck this. I ain't readin' some sorta new article.. I am outta here!

[Floodify]

The rules is currently being looked in to. The reason why having a war in the city is not allowed is because of the great deal of chaos it is going to create. Although I see your good point of it, I can only imagine people bases in the city and chaos. I do realize that the rules are not perfect, but a pair of extra eyes to go through the rules is always good and you can bring another perspective of the rules.

However I'd like to point out something on this sentence;

Why must I simply die and have my clan closed because of some crappy rule?

In order to win the war you are not to kill the representative, but capture them. This opens a great deal of freedom when it comes to tactical assault or various ways to for example lure the representative out.

[BlackDog]

In order to win the war you are not to kill the representative, but capture them. This opens a great deal of freedom when it comes to tactical assault or various ways to for example lure the representative out.

While true, rule #3 states one cannot use guerilla tactics, meaning one cannot be sneaky in their tactics and must use straight forward conventional contra raid tactics, essentialy needing to announce their attack before it commences.


"Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as armed civilians or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

Tactically, the Guerrilla army would avoid any confrontation with large units of enemy troops, but seek and eliminate small groups of soldiers to minimize losses and exhaust the opposing force. Not limiting their targets to personnel, enemy resources are also preferred targets. All of that is to weaken the enemy's strength, to cause the enemy eventually to be unable to prosecute the war any longer, and to force the enemy to withdraw."

Im not entirely sure why this wouldnt be allowed if you have already restricted combat to specific zones, if a smaller clan wishes to make use of said irregular tactics in an attempt to widdle down the enemy forces of a much larger clan or alliance, why should they not be allowed to do so?

Overall though im still against clan wars in general due to the drama and community havok they have and still do cause.

[Joey Skylynx]

I agree that it takes care of some issues in relation to the commanders just sitting away in some doomfort and doing nothing, but at the same time we'll see problems in which groups will just be fully-armed with tranqs, and that'll end a clan war without much gunplay or true tactics being used by every group.
As for the usage of attacks in the city: Would it be possible to limit the city for storefront usage and possibly the usage of molotovs and some gunplay against storefronts? I believe I mentioned in the chat last night that all "crossfire" against civlians who are not directly involved in the clan affairs[including buying/selling items at a clans store] that they must be reimbursed by the clan who caused the attacks, and when this does occur, the government is allowed to intervene into the clan war.

Which reminds me... If the government captures and arrests members of another clan for attacking other users, and the other clan bribes off the government to unarrest the other clan members so the other clan can capture people like leaders and such... Would this account as an attack on the city?

[Floodify]

You wouldn't be able to capture the leaders and such IN the city. Technically I guess you could pay the bail for them so they are getting released earlier .. but they would have to return to the war zone in order to actually be captured as that is the only location where you may kill / capture another clan member in a war.

Looked in to the current rules and have decided to remove the guerilla warfare rule and instead of being removed completely upon death, you will have a one hour timer which you may not return to the war zone or interact with another clan or his/hers own clan. You can now to come to an agreement (both parties must agree on this) to cease fire, which will result in no clan being closed or anything as such.

[Joey Skylynx]

Yay changes to the rules.